Interjurisdictional Competition and Regulatory Advantage

As formal trade and investment barriers fall, government regulations– what once were domestic policy matters – becomeissues of international concern. International commerce createsthe potential for competition among regulatory jurisdictions.This article explains why there is variation in these regulatorytrends. Three general ‘trajectories’ are: (a) convergenceamong countries toward less stringent regulations in some cases,(b) convergence toward more stringent regulations in others,while in still other cases (c) differences persist among countries.I offer three (related) propositions which explain the differentregulatory trajectories: #1) Regulations on production processestend toward laxity; whereas product market-access regulationstend toward stringency. #2) Industrial structure affects thestrength of the process/market-access distinction. Powerfulfirms in concentrated markets facilitate collective action andregulatory capture. Dominant producers push for process andmarket-access regulations which reflect their interests, givingthem a competitive regulatory advantage in world markets. #3)The asset specificity of investments affects regulatory convergence.Low asset specificity leads to a competition-in-laxity; highmultinational asset specificity leads to convergence among jurisdictions(as firms seek to lower their transaction costs); and domesticasset specificity leads to differences among jurisdictions.Detailed case studies (on offshore banking, capital requirements,and infant formula) suggest the propositions are necessary tounderstand general outcomes, although not sufficient to fullyexplain individual cases.     

"Beaten to death". An autopsy series of homicidal blunt force injuries

Although gunshot is by far the most common means of homicide in the United States, significant numbers of homicides are also perpetrated by other means. Blunt-force injuries are produced by a variety of objects, including hands and feet and many different weapons. Some of these objects produce distinctive patterns of injury of potential evidentiary value. This paper presents a series of 20 consecutive blunt-force homicides in adults. Seventy percent (14 cases) of the victims were men. Thirty percent (six cases) followed an argument or altercation. A number of the weapons used were "weapons of opportunity" seized in the course of the incidents. Sixty-nine percent (nine cases) of known assailants were acquainted with their victims. Few characteristic patterned injuries were seen. Not surprisingly, craniocerebral trauma was the most common cause of death. One half (10 cases) the victims survived their assaults for varying periods of time. Homicides due to blunt-force injury still pose a significant challenge for the forensic pathologist, who must obtain a complete and accurate history of the fatal incident, interpret patterns of injury and other findings at autopsy, and correlate all of the findings to make an accurate ruling of the cause and manner of death.